Slow isocharged sequence ions with helium collisions: Projectile core dependence

Abstract

References (50)

Citing Articles

Download: PDF (534 kB) or Buy this Article (US$25) (Use Article Pack)

Deyang Yu,¹ Xiaohong Cai,¹ Rongchun Lu,^1,2 Fangfang Ruan,^1,2 Caojie Shao,¹ Hongqiang Zhang,³ Ying Cui,³ Jun Lu,¹ Xu Xu,³ Jianxiong Shao,³ Baowei Ding,³ Zhihu Yang,¹ Ximeng Chen,³ and Zhaoyuan Liu³
¹Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, People's Republic of China
²Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, People's Republic of China
³Department of Modern Physics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, People's Republic of China

Received 11 January 2007; published 22 August 2007

Thecollisions of the isocharged sequence ions of q=6 (C⁶⁺, N⁶⁺,O⁶⁺, F⁶⁺, Ne⁶⁺, Ar⁶⁺, and Ca⁶⁺), q=7 (F⁷⁺, Ne⁷⁺, S⁷⁺,Ar⁷⁺, and Ca⁷⁺), q=8 (F⁸⁺, Ne⁸⁺, Ar⁸⁺, and Ca⁸⁺), q=9(F⁹⁺, Ne⁹⁺, Si⁹⁺, S⁹⁺, Ar⁹⁺, and Ca⁹⁺) and q=11 (Si¹¹⁺,Ar¹¹⁺, and Ca¹¹⁺) with helium at the same velocities wereinvestigated. The cross-section ratios of the double-electron transfer (DET) tothe single-electron capture (SEC) sigma ^DET/ sigma ^SEC and the true double-electron capture(TDC) to the double-electron transfer sigma ^TDC/ sigma ^DET were measured. It showsthat for different ions in an isocharged sequence, the experimentalcross-section ratio sigma ^DET/ sigma ^SEC varies by a factor of 3. Theresults confirm that the projectile core is another dominant factorbesides the charge state and the collision velocity in slow(0.35−0.49v₀; v₀ denotes the Bohr velocity) highly charged ions (HCIs)with helium collisions. The experimental cross-section ratio sigma ^DET/ sigma ^SEC is comparedwith the extended classical over-barrier model (ECBM) [A. Bárány et al.,Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 9, 397 (1985)], themolecular Coulombic barrier model (MCBM) [A. Niehaus, J. Phys. B19, 2925 (1986)], and the semiempirical scaling laws (SSL) [N.Selberg et al., Phys. Rev. A 54, 4127 (1996)]. It alsoshows that the projectile core properties affect the initial captureprobabilities as well as the subsequent relaxation of the projectiles.The experimental cross-section ratio sigma ^TDC/ sigma ^DET for those lower isocharged sequencesis dramatically affected by the projectile core structure, while forthose sufficiently highly isocharged sequences, the autoionization always dominates, hencethe cross-section ratio sigma ^TDC/ sigma ^DET is always small.

URL:	http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.022710
DOI:	10.1103/PhysRevA.76.022710
PACS:	34.70.+e; 82.30.Fi 34.70.+e Charge transfer (atoms and molecules) 82.30.Fi Ion–molecule, ion–ion, and charge-transfer chemical reactions YEAR: 2007
KEYWORDS:	atom-ion collisions, autoionisation, electron capture

REFERENCES (50)

View in Separate Window/Tab

For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.

E. Justiniano, C. L. Cocke, T. J. Gray, R. Dubois, C. Can, W. Waggoner, R. Schuch, H. Schmidt-Böcking, and H. Ingwersen, Phys. Rev. A 29, 1088 (1984).
J. Vancura, V. J. Marchetti, J. J. Perotti, and V. O. Kostroun, Phys. Rev. A 47, 3758 (1993).
H. Cederquist, C. Biedermann, N. Selberg, and P. Hvelplund, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2169 (1995).
H. Cederquist, C. Biedermann, N. Selberg, and P. Hvelplund, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2191 (1995).
H. Cederquist, Phys. Rev. A 43, 2306 (1991).
S. Bliman, R. Bruch, M. Cornille, A. Langereis, and J. Nordgren, Phys. Rev. A 66, 052707 (2002).
N. Selberg, C. Biedermann, and H. Cederquist, Phys. Rev. A 54, 4127 (1996).
N. Selberg, C. Biedermann, and H. Cederquist, Phys. Rev. A 56, 4623 (1997).
W. Fritsch and C. D. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 45, 6411 (1992).
W. Fritsch and C. D. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 54, 4931 (1996).
M. C. Bacchus-Montabonel, Phys. Rev. A 53, 3667 (1996).
C. Chaudhuri, S. Sanyal, and T. K. Rai Dastidar, Phys. Rev. A 52, 1137 (1995).
Y. S. Tergiman and M. C. Bacchus-Montabonel, Phys. Rev. A 64, 042721 (2001).
I. Y. Tolstikhina, O. I. Tolstikhin, and H. Tawara, Phys. Rev. A 57, 4387 (1998).
H. Knudsen, H. K. Haugen, and P. Hvelplund, Phys. Rev. A 23, 597 (1981).
F. Frémont, C. Bedouet, X. Husson, and J.-Y. Chesnel, Phys. Rev. A 57, 4379 (1998).
J.-Y. Chesnel, B. Sulik, H. Merabet, C. Bedouet, F. Frémont, X. Husson, M. Grether, A. Spieler, and N. Stolterfoht, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3546 (1998).
J.-Y. Chesnel, H. Merabet, B. Sulik, F. Frémont, C. Bedouet, X. Husson, M. Grether, and N. Stolterfoht, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2935 (1998).
E. Y. Kamber, M. A. Abdallah, C. L. Cocke, and M. Stöckli, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2907 (1999).
J. Bernard, R. Brédy, S. Martin, L. Chen, J. Désesquelles, and M. C. Buchet-Poulizac, Phys. Rev. A 66, 013209 (2002).
H. Ryufuku, K. Sasaki, and T. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. A 21, 745 (1980).
W. Wu, C. L. Cocke, J. P. Giese, F. Melchert, M. L. A. Raphaelian, and M. Stöckli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1054 (1995).
R. Parameswaran, C. P. Bhalla, B. P. Walch, and B. D. DePaola, Phys. Rev. A 43, 5929 (1991).
N. Shimakura, S. Yamada, S. Suzuki, and M. Kimura, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2989 (1995).
E. Y. Kamber, K. Akgüngör, C. Leather, and A. G. Brenton, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1452 (1996).